Let's Brew Wednesday - 1856 Devenish Store Beer

Yet another Strong Ale recipe. You may have noticed a theme. All to do with my new book, obviously.

I look back at some brewing records – mostly the totally handwritten ones – and think: “How the hell did I ever make any sense out of that?”

I had that in spades with the Devenish records. Luckily, I’d already transcribed most of the information years ago. And not really done anything with it until now.

Given its name, I think it’s fair to assume that it was meant to be aged. Which is why I’ve knocked the FG down from the racking gravity. A secondary fermentation – with Brettanomyces playing a leading role – would have slowly worked its way through the stuff Saccharomyces couldn’t handle.

The brewing record contains no details of the hops, other than the quantity. It’s not the most expansive of documents.

1856 Devenish Store Beer
mild malt	18.75 lb	100.00%
Goldings 60 mins	2.75 oz
Goldings 20 mins	2.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1086
FG	1020
ABV	8.73
Apparent attenuation	76.74%
IBU	45
SRM	8
Mash at	155º F
Sparge at	178º F
Boil time	60 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my two new books, Strong! vols. 1 & 2 and Strong! vol.2.

Pasteurisation

We're back with Lloyd Hind trying to predict the future of UK.

He seems to have been fascinated by pasteurisation especially its use in stabilising bottled beers. In the 1920s, even for non-bottle-conditioned beers, pasteurising wasn't common in the UK Chilled and filtered bottled beers were filtered, cooled down to precipitate out sediment and then artificially carbonated, though, obviously, such beers would have a limited shelf-life as they weren't biologically sterile, as pasteurised beer would be.

There were still problems with pasteurised beers:

"Given satisfactory pasteurisation any turbidity that arises is due to gradual precipitation of protein matter; fermentation in bottle would point to the use of dirty bottles or failure to secure proper sterilisation. Modern pasteurising apparatus has got over to very great extent the other two difficulties that used to be so apparent, namely, the production of rather objectionable flavour and high percentage of breakage, with loss of bottles and beer. Prevention of steamed flavour does not, however, depend only on the process of pasteurisation; brewing methods and materials have lot to do with it, and in general lager beers stand the heating better than top-fermentation beers."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, page 323.

That's the problem I always has with pasteurisation: the funny boiled flavour. For some reason it's particularly prominent with British-style beers. A point which Lloyd Hind makes:

"There are differences, too, in the way in which lager beers will stand up after pasteurisation. The German brewers suffer more in this direction than the American; turbidity came on much more quickly in German export beer, and with turbidity deterioration in flavour takes place but greyness without any change in flavour is enough to make high-class beer unsaleable, or, in any case, let in the opponent's beer in the export market. The advantage gained by the American brewers was due to their unrestricted choice in the matter of materials. The Germans were confined to the use of malt only in the mash tun."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, page 323 - 324.

Basically, through the use of unmalted grains, American pasteurised beers were more stable than German ones. That pesky Reinheitsgebot made life difficult for the German brewer.

Why was British beer crap in the 1920s?

I think I know the answer to that question. But let's get another opinion first.

This is from Lloyd Hind, a renowned brewing scientist.

"It might be well to set out some of the disadvantages of top beer and then examine how they can be most easily overcome, either by the adoption of bottom fermentation or by improvement of present methods.

Quite apart from questions of flavour or brilliance, beer as generally brewed here suffers from the following causes:—

(1)    It is frequently sent out from the brewery in an unfinished state, the last stages of conditioning and fining being left in the hands of the customer, a not altogether satisfactory state of affairs.

(2)    There is a considerable amount of waste on account of the sediment.

(3)    Export trade is severely handicapped through the difficulty of pasteurisation and the instability of any other than comparatively strong beers.

Chilling and carbonating has been adopted to a very large extent with a view to getting over some of these disadvantages, and has met with a great measure of success for quick trade, but it cannot be said to be altogether a success. Typical characteristics of British beers are their hop aroma and the flavours produced by secondary fermentation. Chilling, filtration and pasteurisation tend to remove these very much-desired flavours, so that chilled and filtered beer generally suffers in comparison with naturally conditioned beer. Chilled and filtered beer also has the very serious disadvantage of instability. Haze and fermentation often set in very rapidly. This may be very largely due to the fact that the chilling process has been adapted to beers brewed on lines which were worked out or have been developed for natural conditioning and are totally unsuitable for really good chilled and filtered beer."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, page 322.

The real problem was the drop in strength in WW II. Publicans had been able to get away with dodgy cask handling when beer was stronger and sold quickly. It took a while for brewers to adjust their recipes and methods to account for weaker draught beers.

And for publicans to get their act together. But they did, eventually.

Why did cask beer survive in the UK an almost nowhere else?

Beer of the future

Back with Lloyd Hind's speculative piece on how beer might look in the future.

He spoke at some length about just how short-sighted UK brewers were when it came to exports:

"English brewers have never exploited fully the very large field existing for export bottled beer, to warm climates in particular. At present, of course, that particular trade is severely handicapped, and often made impossible by the rates of exchange, but the possibilities in regard to it for ale and lager should not be overlooked. When strong ales were brewed it was possible to do a great deal with naturally conditioned pale ales, but the tendency is generally for a lighter beer. To ensure constant success with these beers pasteurisation is necessary in the export trade, and pasteurisation of top-fermented bottled beers has not hitherto been so successful as that of lager. Indeed, I think it may be said without hesitation that lager is the better beer for the export pasteurised trade. America at one time had a very large trade of this kind.. Is it not worth while considering who is getting it now, and whether a larger share is not available for this country, particularly if advantage was taken of the possibilities of bonding up to the time of bottling?"
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, pages 321 - 322.

I don't think it was the conditioning or bottling methods which were hampering the UK's export trade. More that consumer tastes had moved on and UK brewers were serving up the wrong types of beer. For the most part, though some brewers like Allsopp did try to keep up, they didn't attempt to switch to Lager for the tropics.

Only problem with Lager was, it was too expensive:

"If these considerations point to the possibility of lager being the beer of the future, there are others which point very strongly in the contrary direction. There are many factors which complicate the issue, and digestibility and less intoxicating properties are not very likely to overcome some of them. The chief of these are economic, based largely on the duty that beer has to carry here, and the greatly increased cost of lager brewing. Every effort must be made to reduce the cost to customers, and it is not very likely that brewers will seriously consider a process which adds materially to the cost of production, through refrigeration or otherwise, if there are other ways of producing the beer that is demanded."

Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, page 322.

The answer in the 1960s and 1970s was to convince consumers that Lager was a fancy sophisticated product, worthy of a premium price. At the same time cutting corners in production to make it cheaper to brew.

Next time, Lloyd Hind will explain why British beer was so crap and how it could be fixed.

1911 Russell XXX

Russell was a smallish brewery in Gravesend in Kent. They were bought by Truman in 1930. Along with 223 pubs, which is what Truman would really have wanted.

Russell XXX has very much the air of a London Burton. No real surprise, as the brewery wasn’t a million miles away from the capital.

The grist is a classic base malt, flaked maize and sugar combination. There were two types pf pale malt, described as “English” and “foreign”. Which would be noting the origin of the barley, not where the malting was done. Which would have been in the UK. Apart from tiny quantities of lager malt, no malt was imported into the UK at that point.

“Pale invert” and “Kendall” are the descriptions given to the two types of sugar. To interpret the first as No. 1 invert is a no-brainer. The latter, given the minute amount employed, must be some type of caramel

1911 Russell XXX
pale malt	12.25 lb	77.88%
flaked maize	1.25 lb	7.95%
No. 1 invert sugar	2.15 lb	13.67%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.08 lb	0.51%
Fuggles 120 mins	2.00 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1076
FG	1022
ABV	7.14
Apparent attenuation	71.05%
IBU	62
SRM	13
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my two new books, Strong! vols. 1 & 2 and Strong! vol.2.

Strong! vols 1 & 2 now available

For various complicated and rather dull reasons, rather than update Strong vol. 1, I've issued a new book which includes both volume 1 and volume 2.

The combined book is well over 500 pages of Strong Ale fun.. Including over 130 home brew recipes, covering every decade from the 1830s to the 1990s. As well as a load of other wonderful insights into all sorts of strong UK beer.

Until 31st July 11:59 PM (ET) you can also get 15% off it (and all my other print books) with this code:

CREATIVE15

Pure yeast culture

I found some tasty titbits on the subject of yeast in a 1924 article by brewing scientist Lloyd Hind. the article in question is called "Beer of the Future".

To be honest, he was a bit wide of the mark in his long-term predictions:

"That the improvement of Continental beers has gone hand-in-hand with the adoption of low fermentation processes does not necessarily imply, that the beer of the future will be lager. In flavour and manner and temperature of serving the two types of beer, top and bottom fermentation are quite distinct, and the choice between the two is one of personal taste. In this country beer drinkers have become so wedded to the flavour of top fermentation beer that they prefer it, and in many cases express dislike for lager. The great majority, however, of those who decry lager have never tasted it as it should be, and generally say they do not like such thin stuff, ignoring the fact that such description does not apply to good lager any more than it does to good English beer."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, page 319.

Time has definitely proved him wrong on that one. Lager is undoubtedly the most popular type of beer in the UK today'

Lloyd Hind hoped that UK brewers would give pure yeast cultures another try. A few breweries played around with them in the late 19th century, but gave up when they couldn't get secondary conditioning to work. Not knowing that Brettanomyces performed the secondary fermentation.

"The greatest advance in recent years connected with fermentation has been the introduction of pure cultures and their extensive use in the larger lager breweries; in fact, there are now few of any size that do not avail themselves of the advantages in regularity and quality of beer obtained thereby. So far no success has attended its trials in English breweries. It must, however, be admitted that these trials have not been very extensive, and the sweeping condemnation sometimes passed on any suggestion to adapt pure yeast to English conditions is not justified. The only trials I know of were made many years ago and in connection with beers whose distinctive palate depended on a secondary fermentation. This distinctive Burton flavour I have seen produced in beers as different from normal Burton beers as bottom-fermented stout by an inoculation in the bottle of pure cultures of Bretannomyces, as its discoverer, Clausen, called the particular Torula employed. Conditions are now entirely altered. Secondary fermentation in far the greater number of breweries is a thing of the past, and the desideratum now is to prevent the development of secondary yeast. Under conditions such as these, surely it is time to reopen the investigation and endeavour to put fermentation on a sounder and more certain basis."

Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 30, 1924, page 330.

Of course, there are still UK breweries which don't use a pure culture. Adnams, for example have two strains in their pitching yeast. Who knows what's in Harvey's yeast. I'm guessing more than just one strain of Saccharomyces and Denbaromyces.

Strong! vol 2 now available

My new book of Strong Ale recipes has now been released.

It's meant as a supplement to my existing book Strong!. It includes over 130 home brew recipes, covering every decade from the 1830s to the 1990s. I think it's pretty damn good.

Until 31st July 11:59 PM (EST) you can also get 15% off it (and all my other print books) with this code:

CREATIVE15

Newcastle Breweries medal winners in 1928

Thanks to Adrian Tierney Jones's handy book "Brewing Champions" on the history of the International Brewing awards, I know which medals Newcastle Breweries won in 1928.

These ones:

Class IV (mild ale with an original gravity of 1039-1046°)
Class VII (light bitter with an original gravity under 1039°)
Bottled Non-deposit Beers Class XIII (beer with an original gravity of 1033-1039°)
Bottled Non-deposit Beers Class XV (beer with an original gravity of 1046-1060°)

Plus:

The Champion Gold Medal for beers with an original gravity of 1039° and under was awarded to Newcastle Breweries, Newcastle upon Tyne.
The Brewers’ Journal Challenge Cup was awarded to Newcastle Breweries, Newcastle upon Tyne.

I'm pretty sure I know which beers they were, too:

Newcastle Breweries medal-winning beers?
Year	Beer	Style	Price per pint (d)	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1925	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	6.5	1038.5	1006.4	4.18	83.38%
1928	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	9	1060.1	1012.5	6.21	79.20%
1931	Mild Ale	Mild		1040.5	1013.5	3.49	66.67%
Source:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number TU/6/11.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

I'm guessing that the Pale Ale which won class XIII was the bottled version of the class VII winner. Newcastle Brown obviously won class XV.

There were 19 classes in all, with 3 medals for each class. Making 57 medals in total. Winning four medals does seem very impressive. Until you realise that two other brewers matched them:

George Gale, Horndean, Hampshire
Nicholson & Sons, Maidenhead

And a further two won three medals:

Tamplin & Sons Brewery, Phoenix Brewery, Brighton
G Vallance, Sidmouth, Devon

I may post on the classes used by the competition, if anyone is interested.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1922 Wadworth XXXX

This is another one where I’m not 100% sure what it was. I have it marked down as a Mild Ale in my spreadsheet. Except 1056º is too strong for a 1922 Mild. Especially one brewed out in the sticks.

Wadworth had four Mild Ales in 1922: XX 1029.6º, XXX 1033º and XXXX 1040.7º

But this wasn’t a standard brew of XXXX. It’s usual OG was 1040.7º, this batch is much stronger. Why on earth suddenly brew a much higher OG version? In the comments section is says “Stk Sep 10”. Not sure at all what that means.

At this strength, XXXX looks very much like a Southern Old Ale. Which is basically just a stronger Mild Ale.

Base malt, maize and sugar. So many 20th-century British beers are made up of those three elements. The type of invest is a guess. I could be wrong. The hop variety is a guess, too. As are the mashing temperatures. The information I have is very basic. Not much more than a list of ingredients.

1922 Wadworth XXXX
pale malt	9.00 lb	76.14%
flaked maize	1.25 lb	10.58%
glucose	0.75 lb	6.35%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.75 lb	6.35%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.07 lb	0.59%
Fuggles 90 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	0.75 oz
OG	1056
FG	1020
ABV	4.76
Apparent attenuation	64.29%
IBU	25
SRM	12.5
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	58º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

Bottled Stouts in 1913

When searching for early references to Dark Mild, one I stumbled upon was in a massive catalogue from William Whiteley Ltd., published in 1913.  They billed themselves as "universal providers" and it's no exaggeration.

Bed linen, external blinds, marquees, saddles, furniture handles, mangles, hammers, dog collars, revolvers, model trains, cameras, Russian flags, salad dressing, ham, mushroom spawn, monkeys, coal and beer. In fact, if you want to know the price of just about anything in 1913, this is the place to look. The two volumes run over 1200 pages.

Obviously the beer bit interests me most. Quite a lot of beers are included, mostly draught, but also quite a few bottles.

There's this little notice at the start of the beer section to remind you of the idiocy of UK licensing laws:

"SPECIAL NOTICE.
Under the conditions of our Licence we cannot supply leas than 3 dozen Imperial Pints; 4 dozen Reputed Pints; 6 dozen Imperial Half-Pints of Bottled Ales and Stout. 2 dozen Reputed Quarts; 4 dozen Reputed Pints of Cyder.
Quantities can be made up, assorted, to suit our Customers' requirements."

While in the revolver section there are no restrictions on sales.

It also claims: "Any Ale or Stout not quoted in these Lists can be procured at short notice." I'm not sure that's 100% true. I'm betting that they couldn't have got hold of the beer from a tint brewery in rural Scotland.

The bottled Stouts they had as regular offerings were mostly from the London area, with the exception of Usher, Allsopp and Guinness. They mostly look pretty weak, based on the price.

I've assumed that Whitbread Copper is their Porter, and Stout is London Stout.  And that seems to tally with their strength. Draught Porter was 2d per pint and bottled beer sold at a premium. So 2s 6d a dozen (2.5d per pint) is about the cheapest you'd ever expect to see a beer described "Stout".

Guinness is probably the strongest beer in the list. And that wasn't super-strong for a Stout. There  were much stronger ones. For example, Whitbread SS and SSS were 1086º and 1095º, respectively. At just 2d per pint, Whiteley's own brand Brown Stout must have been under 1050º.

Not sure why the Guinness bottled by M.H. Foster was more expensive. They must be the same beer, as Guinness only made Extra Stout and the export version Foreign Extra Stout.

Bottled Stouts in 1913
Brewery	Place	beer	price (per doz) Imperial pint	OG
Whiteley	London	Whiteley’s London Brown Stout	2s
Whiteley	London	Whiteley’s Nourishing Stout (specially selected)	2s 6d
Whitbread	London	Whitbread's Cooper	2s 4d	1053
Whitbread	London	Whitbread's Stout	2s 6d	1054
Usher	Devizes	Usher’s Court Luncheon Stout	2s 6d
Usher	Devizes	Usher's Oatmeal Stout	2s 6d
Watney, Combe, Reid	London	Reid's Stout	3s 6d
Watney, Combe, Reid	London	Reid's Invalid Stout	3s
Watney, Combe, Reid	London	Reid’s Family Stout	2s 6d
Sedgwick	Watford	Sedgwick's Stout	2s 6d
Fremlin	Maidstone	Fremlin’s Stout, Elephant Brand	2s 6d
Fremlin	Maidstone	Fremlin’s Oatmeal Stout	2s 6d
Allsopp	Burton	Allsopp’s Luncheon Stout	2s 6d
Waltham	London	Waltham’s Brown Stout	2s 6d
Waltham	London	Waltham's S. N. Stout	3s
Allsopp	Burton	Allsopp's Special Stout	3s 3d
Raggett	London	Raggett's Nourishing Stout	4s
Guinness	Dublin	Guinness’s Extra Double Stout	3s 4d	1074
Guinness	Dublin	Guinness’s Extra Stout (bottled M. H. Foster & Sons)	4s	1074
Sources:
William Whiteley General Price List October, 1913, Volume 2, page 1196.
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/107.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Dark Mild (part six)

Brewers are proud of the awards they receive. However mean8ngless they might have been. Plenty of competitions would give medal of some sort to anyone who paid the entrance fee.

The Brewers Exhibition contest wasn't like that. The oldest beer competition in the world, it was fiercely contested. And still is. Getting five firsts when there would have been hundreds of entries really is an achievement.

"Note the New Label
When you order a rich dark mild, look for this label. It appears on all bottles of Newcastle Ales, and is at once a sign of good brewing and a record of the sweeping success of these Northern brewed beers at the Brewers Exhibition of 1928. See the seven awards (including five “firsts”) shown on the upper part of the label. Then taste the beer itself and enjoy the smoothness and richness that can only come from extreme care and experience in brewing. Try a bottle for supper to-night.

6.5d Imp. Pint
Imperial Pints - 6/6 dozen.
Imperial Halves 3/9 dozen.
Reputed Pints - 5/6 dozen."
Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Thursday 28 February 1929, page 7.

They are a bit coy about which beers won medals. I know that Newcastle Brown Ale did. Not so sure about the Mild Ale.

I'm quite surprised to see them still using reputed points at this late a date. After WW II, pretty much everything was in imperial halves, pints of quarts. A reputed pint was about two-thirds of a pint.

Looking at the illustration, it seems that the bottles were sealed with screw tops of the internal thread type. Not crown corks. A little bit old-fashioned, but OI remember some Whitbread beer still being packaged in that type of bottle when I lived in Leeds in the 1970s.

Dark Mild (part five)

I'm still banging my Dark Mild drum. This new advert I've found definitively answers a question on  an earlier post: did Newcastle Dark Mild become Newcastle Brown?

I'd already said no.  But in the advert below you can see that the two beers coexisted. And, from the price, it's obvious that Brown Ale was a much stronger beer.

Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Wednesday 01 April 1931, page 12.

He does look more like a Mild drinkerthan the two rather posh blokes in the last advert. The fag hanging out of a corner of the mouth is a nice touch.

This is the advert text:

"EASTER!
Let your holiday drink be BRITAIN'S BEST BEER
However you spend your Easter Holiday this year, you can always be sure of good wholesome refreshment in Newcastle Champion Ales . . . acknowledged by experts as Britain’s Best!
Whether you prefer a strong brown ale, a sparkling bitter, a rich dark mild . . . you will find real satisfaction in any one these famous northern brews.

NEWCASTLE Champion BROWN ALE-
Pint Bottles - 9/- dozen. Half Pints 5/- dozen.
"Splits" 3/- dozen.

NEWCASTLE Prize Medal PALE ALE—
Pint Bottles - 6/6 dozen. 3/4 pints 5/6 dozen.
Half Pints 3/9 dozen.

NEWCASTLE MILD ALE-
Pint Bottles - 6/6 dozen. 3/4 pints 5/6 dozen.
Half Pints 3/9 dozen. "
Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Wednesday 01 April 1931, page 12.

That's 9d per pint for Brown Ale and 6.5d for Mild Ale. Quite a big difference. Which is reflected in the price.

And for complete confirmation, here are the details of those beers:

Newcastle Breweries beers in 1931
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
Newcastle Pale Ale	Pale Ale	1040	1009.5	3.96	76.25%
Newcastle Brown Ale	Brown Ale	1059.5	1014	5.93	76.47%
Newcastle Mild Ale	Mild	1040.5	1013.5	3.49	66.67%
Newcastle Amber Ale	Amber Ale	1042	1010.5	4.09	75.00%
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

As you can see, Newkie Brown was pretty strong stuff back then at almost 6% ABV. Also, that they left a good amount of residual sugars in the Mild Ale.

Let's Brew - 1885 Mew Langton XXXX

Another new recipe from my new book, "Strong! vol. 2". Which will be available soon. The book itself is done, but I can't sell it until I've approved a proof copy. It'll be a few more days.

An island brewery, this one. Located in Newport, Isle of Wight. It’s one which almost survived into my drinking days. It was bought by Strong in 1965, who in turn were gobbled up by Whitbread in 1969. Mew Langton’s plant closed the same year.

This beer is a real throwback, resembling Reid KKKK from three decades earlier. It’s extremely simple: one base malt and Farnham hops. That’s it. Not that Mew Langton were averse to sugar. Their Pale Ales and Stout contained some. But neither their Mild nor this Strong Ale did.

Unsurprisingly, given its strength, XXXX was only rarely brewed. This appears to be the only batch in 1885. And it wasn’t even a full brew: it was a parti-gyle of 54 barrels of XXXX and 84 barrels of 4d Ale, a Mild.

A whole load of hops and pretty fresh ones, too, being from the 1884 harvest. This beer was brewed in March. I’ve opted for Goldings as the nearest equivalent to Farnham that you’re going to be bale to get hold of.

1885 Mew Langton XXXX
pale malt	23.00 lb	100.00%
Goldings 120 mins	4.50 oz
Goldings 60 mins	4.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	4.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.50 oz
OG	1102
FG	1034
ABV	9.00
Apparent attenuation	66.67%
IBU	127
SRM	9
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	185º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

Why be thirsty?

If you can drink Mild. And at the very reasonable price of 6.5d per pint.

Being honest, the chaps in the illustration aren't my idea of Mild drinkers. Maybe it's the plus fours the one is wearing. Or the knapsack at the other's feet. At least they took a glass with them on their ramble.

Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Thursday 06 June 1929, page 7.

"Why be thirsty?
Why be thirsty, when for sixpence halfpenny you can get an Imperial Pint of NEWCASTLE MILD ALE?

It has a flavour that is just right. It comes smoothly and softly to the palate and gives the satisfaction that makes it a drink that’s really worth while.

Try a bottle of this rich dark mild. To taste it is to make it your preference for ever afterwards!"
Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Thursday 06 June 1929, page 7.

It's a very odd advert, obviously appealing to  - or trying to - the middle class. An odd tactic in 1929, when the image of Mild wasn't exactly classy.

Bottled Mild - despite the style's huge popularity on draught, was rare in bottled form. At least in name. The vast majority of Brown Ales were really bottled Mild.

Dark Mild Ale (part four)

I'm still on the hunt for early references to Dark Mild. It's thrown up some interesting stuff.

Like this notice of an auction. It seems to be the stock of some sort of clothes shop. But why the hell would a clothes shop have a football two barrels of Mild in stock?

The more I look at the list of items, the more it resembles my annual silly Drinkalongathon list. Especially as it includes string.

"SHORT NOTICE
GRANVILLE-PLACE Off TRENTHAM ROAD,
Under execution from the Hanley and Stoke-upon-Trent County Court.
Re LUCY GRINDEY.
MR. CHARLES ONIONS, Court Broker, will SELL BY PUBLlC AUCTlON, on TUESDAY, 29th NOVEMBER, 1921, at the above address, the Whole of the STOCK IN TRADE, &c., comprising;- One hundred and thirty ladies' Tweed skirts, 2 ladies' coats, 1 lady’s costume, gents.' boots, caps, Tweed hats, hard felt hats, 1/2-doz. collars, quantity of spoons and prongs, doz. balls of string, clothes and hair brushes, 8 boxes of cigarettes, 1 football, two 36 gallons of Younger's dark mild beer, 1 small gas heater, quantity of shelving, &c., &c. The above is all new stock.
Sale at 11 30 a.m. prompt.
Cash on fall of the hammer."
Staffordshire Sentinel - Friday 25 November 1921, page 4.

I'm particularly surprised that the Dark Mild was Younger's - I'm assuming William Younger - as it was never much of a thing in Scotland. Most Scottish brewers abandoned Mild Ale in WW I and instead just brewed Pale Ales of several different strengths.

William Younger was a bit of an exception as they continued to brew Mild up to WW II and beyond. I assume because they had considerable trade in England, where Mild was by far the most popular type of beer. But they didn't brew Dark Mild in the 1920s. They did brew two different strengths of Mild, but both, as brewed were pale. The grists being simply pale malt and grits.

Scottish brewers loved colouring up their beer with caramel at racking time. Which is what I assume Younger did.

These were their two Milds in 1921:

William Younger Mild Ales in 1921
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
XX	Mild	1035.3	1009.6	3.39	72.73%	4.55	0.57
XXX	Mild	1041.9	1011.4	4.03	72.73%	4.55	0.65
Source:
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/63.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1886 Hodgson Kingston Ale

I've just about finished adding recipes to Strong!.  Just one or two more to complete and then I'll be done.

Based in Kingston-upon-Thames in the West of London, Hodgson was a relatively small brewery. Acquired by Courage in 1943, it stopped brewing in 1949.

The grist is quite an unusual one. It’s all malt, for a start. By this date I would have expected at least some sugar.  It also doesn’t use pale malt as the base, but high-dried malt. The closest modern equivalent is Simpson’s Imperial. If you can’t get hold of that, use 20 L Munich malt.

There’s also a bit of crystal and a small amount of black malt which provides a lot of the colour. All in all, a grist quite different to any others I’ve seen for this type of beer.

All I know about the hops is that they were English. And there were three different types. No further details were recorded in the log.

1886 Hodgson Kingston Ale
high-dried malt	18.75 lb	96.77%
black malt	0.13 lb	0.65%
crystal malt 60 L	0.50 lb	2.58%
Fuggles 120 mins	2.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings 30 min	2.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1080
FG	1023
ABV	7.54
Apparent attenuation	71.25%
IBU	75
SRM	27
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	52.5º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

Dark Mild Ale (part three)

It was areal shock just how few hits I got in the British Newspaper Archive for "dark mild ale"' Literally, just a handful.

I had more luck - expanding the search, or rather, contracting it - to "dark mild". Which threw up this one:

 Suffolk and Essex Free Press - Thursday 18 December 1924, page 1.

Weird that they call it "Mild Beer" but "Bitter Ale". Even weirder that I drank a pint of XX, in the brewery tap, Less than two years ago.

I've occasionally seen the term "Mild Beer", but not very often. Being the sort of person who obsesses about this sort of rubbish, I've some data to back up this assertion.

I've spent years dredging information from old UK brewery price lists. Which I've put in a spreadsheet, as you do. It has over 4,000 entries. These are the only breweries I could find using the term "Mild Beer" to describer one of their products:

1902 Brook's Cubley Brook Brewery, Sheffield
1884 Leney, Wateringbury
1884 Adey and White, St. Albans
1890 Shepherd Neame, Faversham
1891 St. Anne's Well Brewery, Exeter
1882 Mackeson, Hythe
1882 Gardner, Ash Brewery, near Sandwich
1875 Devenish, Weymouth
1898 WE & J Rigden, Faversham

It's an extremely small subset. While there are hundreds, probably thousands, of instance of the use of the term "Mild Ale".

Why was I in the Greene King brewery tap? Because I was visiting their archive. Which is why I know exactly how strong all those Greene King beers were.

Greene King draught beers in 1935
beer	price per barrel	price (per gallon)	OG
XX Dark Mild Beer	68	23	1029
AK Light Bitter Ale	88	29	1033.2
IA Best Bitter Ale	114	38	1040.7
S Stout	114	38	1046
BA Burton Ale	130	43	1044.6
BBA Strong Ale	154	51	1059
Sources:
Suffolk and Essex Free Press - Thursday 18 December 1924, page 1.
Greene King brewing records held at the brewery, document numbers AC93/1/1.

Interesting that Greene King still had a Stout and a couple of Strong Ales on draught. Even more unusually they brewed three Stouts.

Draught Stout and Extra Stout are obviously the same beer. Special Stout really was pretty strong - 1065.4º. There was also an Oatmeal Stout at 1044º. With, as was traditional in most of the UK, bugger all oats in it.